PI or public service in general is probably the most legit reason to go.

Because ITE it's hard to get these jobs, and you can do public interest work without a law degree.

What would happen if no one went then?

If no one went to law school, then maybe getting a clerkship for John Roberts would be a legitimate reason to go to law school; you'd be the only one applying!

But, in the real world, where tens of thousands of people enroll in law school each year, going to law school for the purpose of getting a hard to get job, when you can still work for non-profits or the government or whatever without a law degree, is still gonna be a poor reason.

That's a bit overly simplistic, to be sure, but the point is, for most people, it's spot on.

And I don't think it's wrong to be PI-focused and have a legit plan for pursuing that type of work, but people who go to law school with the fuzzy notion that they want to "help people" seem to often end up disappointed and unfulfilled.

I'm sorry, but the arguments that some TLSers post about how just because you don't need a law degree to do this or that you should not go to law school are not well informed The rationale I understand lies in cost, but most MPP, MA, or MS programs cost a lot of money as well, and they do not open nearly as many doors as a law degree nor do they provide any security if the door you chose to open isn't what you planned on (where as law, does allow you some movement, perhaps a firm fallback plan). Unfortunately, advanced degrees are needed, and without getting such a degree amidst the current educational inflation largely, you largely diminish your chances of getting prestigious jobs.

For the purposes of this argument, lets assume you are in T14. If you want to do public policy or public interest, no you don't need a law degree, but having one and succeeding in school with a plan to go into these fields can land you a job in them. If you want to do business or consulting, no you don't need a law degree, but having one allows you to work in-house at perhaps a large business or corporation, instead of a firm, in which case you do gain business experience on top of your legal duties and are able to move laterally (I should I know, I am a legal assistant currently and have seen the Legal Directors become senior VPs, albeit they were at the company a good 5 years). If you want to be a diplomat, politician, or have some other general prestigious government position, no you don't need a law degree, but having one could allow you to clerk, be a legal aid on capital hill, and gain experience/prestige and move your career accordingly.

TLS does not factor in that most law students are uncertain, and that is why law school is appealing, as there are multiple doors to walk through, albeit slightly expensive, but a safer bet long term particularly if you are at a top school.

chimp wrote:And I don't think it's wrong to be PI-focused and have a legit plan for pursuing that type of work, but people who go to law school with the fuzzy notion that they want to "help people" seem to often end up disappointed and unfulfilled.

Whether or not your decision is a good one is always dependent on these kinds of factors. But going because you want to help people is still a good reason.

chimp wrote:And I don't think it's wrong to be PI-focused and have a legit plan for pursuing that type of work, but people who go to law school with the fuzzy notion that they want to "help people" seem to often end up disappointed and unfulfilled.

Whether or not your decision is a good one is always dependent on these kinds of factors. But going because you want to help people is still a good reason.

I definitely wouldn't go to law school for the sole purpose of wanting to help people without knowing anything about the way lawyers actually can and do help people.

chimp wrote:And I don't think it's wrong to be PI-focused and have a legit plan for pursuing that type of work, but people who go to law school with the fuzzy notion that they want to "help people" seem to often end up disappointed and unfulfilled.

Whether or not your decision is a good one is always dependent on these kinds of factors. But going because you want to help people is still a good reason.

I definitely wouldn't go to law school for the sole purpose of wanting to help people without knowing anything about the way lawyers actually can and do help people.

chimp wrote:And I don't think it's wrong to be PI-focused and have a legit plan for pursuing that type of work, but people who go to law school with the fuzzy notion that they want to "help people" seem to often end up disappointed and unfulfilled.

Whether or not your decision is a good one is always dependent on these kinds of factors. But going because you want to help people is still a good reason.

I definitely wouldn't go to law school for the sole purpose of wanting to help people without knowing anything about the way lawyers actually can and do help people.

Yes, obviously.

So we're in agreement. Unfortunately, however, many people go to law school solely to "help people" when they really don't even know wtf that really means.

Voldemort wrote:I'm sorry, but the arguments that some TLSers post about how just because you don't need a law degree to do this or that you should not go to law school are not well informed The rationale I understand lies in cost, but most MPP, MA, or MS programs cost a lot of money as well, and they do not open nearly as many doors as a law degree nor do they provide any security if the door you chose to open isn't what you planned on (where as law, does allow you some movement, perhaps a firm fallback plan). Unfortunately, advanced degrees are needed, and without getting such a degree amidst the current educational inflation largely, you largely diminish your chances of getting prestigious jobs.

1) You don't need those degrees either.

2) Master's programs are often one year long, maybe two years. So, right off the bat, it's 1/3-2/3 cheaper in both actual and opportunity cost to do a master's program.

3) A lot more state schools offer master's programs, so it's a lot easier to get into a cheap program. I imagine there are a lot more scholarships handed out too, since law schools often subsidize other grad programs.

4) You might actually learn something useful to your work in a master's program.

5) Legal jobs (even PI, AFAIK) are far more prestige-focused than other jobs. I'm too lazy to look up the data, but I really doubt there is the kind of gap in job prospects between master's programs that there is between law schools.

6) Legal PI jobs are a small fraction of the total PI jobs.

7) A JD opens doors, but it closes a lot of doors, too. If you have a JD, you will overqualify yourself out of a ton of jobs. (I have experience with this myself. My current job, acquired with a BA from a state school, had a bunch of JD applicants that were rejected because their degree demanded too much money, they were a flight risk, and my boss didn't want to deal with someone who would likely see the job a beneath them, i.e., she wanted someone for whom the job was a natural career progression.)

Voldemort wrote:I'm sorry, but the arguments that some TLSers post about how just because you don't need a law degree to do this or that you should not go to law school are not well informed The rationale I understand lies in cost, but most MPP, MA, or MS programs cost a lot of money as well, and they do not open nearly as many doors as a law degree nor do they provide any security if the door you chose to open isn't what you planned on (where as law, does allow you some movement, perhaps a firm fallback plan). Unfortunately, advanced degrees are needed, and without getting such a degree amidst the current educational inflation largely, you largely diminish your chances of getting prestigious jobs.

1) You don't need those degrees either.

2) Master's programs are often one year long, maybe two years. So, right off the bat, it's 1/3-2/3 cheaper in both actual and opportunity cost to do a master's program.

3) A lot more state schools offer master's programs, so it's a lot easier to get into a cheap program. I imagine there are a lot more scholarships handed out too, since law schools often subsidize other grad programs.

4) You might actually learn something useful to your work in a master's program.

5) Legal jobs (even PI, AFAIK) are far more prestige-focused than other jobs. I'm too lazy to look up the data, but I really doubt there is the kind of gap in job prospects between master's programs that there is between law schools.

6) Legal PI jobs are a small fraction of the total PI jobs.

7) A JD opens doors, but it closes a lot of doors, too. If you have a JD, you will overqualify yourself out of a ton of jobs. (I have experience with this myself. My current job, acquired with a BA from a state school, had a bunch of JD applicants that were rejected because their degree demanded too much money, they were a flight risk, and my boss didn't want to deal with someone who would likely see the job a beneath them, i.e., she wanted someone for whom the job was a natural career progression.)

Responding to your points:

1) Exactly you don't. In fact, you don't need a degree technically to really do anything (except of course practice law or medicine), but it sure helps.

2) Masters programs being shorter saves money, but masters programs do not lead to as many jobs, nor do they usually have the potential to lead to as lucrative jobs. I think this argument is more towards PHd students, but that is not relevant to this argument.

3) Is not a good point, as most masters degrees are useless short of networking or a phd.

4) Sorry but your statement about "might' being able to learn something useful is tenuous, as in law your much more likely, since you are actually learning a skill (assuming we are talking about masters in liberal arts)

5) Untrue. Primarily your "than other jobs" qualifier, which ruins any point. And yes, the gap is real, your doubt is unneeded. Again, I was talking about TOP law schools.

6) No shit. This is a truism that doesn't counter my point that legal jobs open an array of doors and are a sound investment if you go to a top school and do well.

7) The overqualification threat is real. I agree. But that actually exists with any professional degree.

roaringeagle wrote:With a law degree I could fight to get that homeless person medical help and shelter.

LOL Lawyers run homeless shelters and soup kitchens now?

What? Homeless shelters should exist? Soup kitchens are medical help? The homeless deserve medical care? Wait these things are brought about in part by lawyers doing pro-bono work?

I could choose any pro-bono topic. How dumb are you?

What on earth are you talking about? People in need don't get help from lawyers, they get help from homeless shelters/soup kitchens (not run by lawyers), churches (not run by lawyers), social workers (not lawyers), government programs (not run by lawyers), advocates (not lawyers), community medical clinics (not run by lawyers), and non-douchey hospitals (not run by lawyers). Some of those organizations need a small amount of legal work, but the vast majority is non-legal. Even the legal-related stuff is often handled by non-lawyers as much of it is simply navigating the system. When does a homeless person need a lawyer?

1) Exactly you don't. In fact, you don't need a degree technically to really do anything (except of course practice law or medicine), but it sure helps.

2) Masters programs being shorter saves money, but masters programs do not lead to as many jobs, nor do they usually have the potential to lead to as lucrative jobs. I think this argument is more towards PHd students, but that is not relevant to this argument.

3) Is not a good point, as most masters degrees are useless short of networking or a phd.

4) Sorry but your statement about "might' being able to learn something useful is tenuous, as in law your much more likely, since you are actually learning a skill (assuming we are talking about masters in liberal arts)

5) Untrue. Primarily your "than other jobs" qualifier, which ruins any point. And yes, the gap is real, your doubt is unneeded. Again, I was talking about TOP law schools.

6) No shit. This is a truism that doesn't counter my point that legal jobs open an array of doors and are a sound investment if you go to a top school and do well.

7) The overqualification threat is real. I agree. But that actually exists with any professional degree.

We're talking about two different things. There is a small class of PI jobs that are only accessible from T14 schools, some even T6 or YHS. Yes, law school can be great if you want those jobs, but they are very competitive. To get those jobs, you pretty much need to have a strong PI resume coming into law school. This applies to an incredibly small percentage of law school applicants. So small, that it's dumb to discuss it in a thread that is about not going to law school in general.

roaringeagle wrote:With a law degree I could fight to get that homeless person medical help and shelter.

LOL Lawyers run homeless shelters and soup kitchens now?

What? Homeless shelters should exist? Soup kitchens are medical help? The homeless deserve medical care? Wait these things are brought about in part by lawyers doing pro-bono work?

I could choose any pro-bono topic. How dumb are you?

What on earth are you talking about? People in need don't get help from lawyers, they get help from homeless shelters/soup kitchens (not run by lawyers), churches (not run by lawyers), social workers (not lawyers), government programs (not run by lawyers), advocates (not lawyers), community medical clinics (not run by lawyers), and non-douchey hospitals (not run by lawyers). Some of those organizations need a small amount of legal work, but the vast majority is non-legal. Even the legal-related stuff is often handled by non-lawyers as much of it is simply navigating the system. When does a homeless person need a lawyer?

Sigh.

--LinkRemoved--

One among MANY lawyer associations to help the homeless. Who do you think controls the money for government programs for the homeless? Who is going to make sure the homeless have a strong voice on their side? Homeless people never get in legal trouble right?

One among MANY lawyer associations to help the homeless. Who do you think controls the money for government programs for the homeless? Who is going to make sure the homeless have a strong voice on their side? Homeless people never get in legal trouble right?

No the homeless are fine without a strong advocate like a lawyer. I hope you are joking.

I never said the homeless don't need legal help. But the majority of their help received is not from lawyers. And who controls the money for government programs? Political advocates, the vast majority of whom are not lawyers.

And let's look at your first link. That group employs a whopping six lawyers. And their backgrounds are as follows:

Columbia, Ed. LR, MA (And by the way, note how she clerked and worked at SulCrom before founding the program.)GULC, magna, co-founder of a journalGWPro Bono Coordinator - no JD, in fact, only BAUWashingtonDuke, LR, MA (also clerked and worked biglaw first)GULCDirector of Dev. - no degree mentioned

So, 2 out of the 8 jobs you mention don't have a law degree, half are top performers at T14s, and the other two are at T25 schools. Oh, and all of them got their jobs pre-ITE. So yeah, PI is so easy to do! Everyone should do it!

1) Exactly you don't. In fact, you don't need a degree technically to really do anything (except of course practice law or medicine), but it sure helps.

2) Masters programs being shorter saves money, but masters programs do not lead to as many jobs, nor do they usually have the potential to lead to as lucrative jobs. I think this argument is more towards PHd students, but that is not relevant to this argument.

3) Is not a good point, as most masters degrees are useless short of networking or a phd.

4) Sorry but your statement about "might' being able to learn something useful is tenuous, as in law your much more likely, since you are actually learning a skill (assuming we are talking about masters in liberal arts)

5) Untrue. Primarily your "than other jobs" qualifier, which ruins any point. And yes, the gap is real, your doubt is unneeded. Again, I was talking about TOP law schools.

6) No shit. This is a truism that doesn't counter my point that legal jobs open an array of doors and are a sound investment if you go to a top school and do well.

7) The overqualification threat is real. I agree. But that actually exists with any professional degree.

We're talking about two different things. There is a small class of PI jobs that are only accessible from T14 schools, some even T6 or YHS. Yes, law school can be great if you want those jobs, but they are very competitive. To get those jobs, you pretty much need to have a strong PI resume coming into law school. This applies to an incredibly small percentage of law school applicants. So small, that it's dumb to discuss it in a thread that is about not going to law school in general.

You need a strong PI resume coming into law school to get a PI job? Are you serious? Sorry dude, that may help, but that is far from a necessary condition. Your just making stuff up stuff as you go a long, and if you disagree, go ahead a look at the resumes of some top PI attorneys- most went straight from college to law school. Cite some evidence, cause that remark is pretty outlandish.

Voldemort wrote:You need a strong PI resume coming into law school to get a PI job? Are you serious? Sorry dude, that may help, but that is far from a necessary condition. Your just making stuff up stuff as you go a long, and if you disagree, go ahead a look at the resumes of some top PI attorneys- most went straight from college to law school. Cite some evidence, cause that remark is pretty outlandish.

At nearly all schools, less than 5% of the class is working in PI after graduation. Even at NYU, the school with the highest PI placement, less than 12% of the c/o 2010 worked in PI after graduation. If you don't think you need a strong PI resume to get prestigious PI jobs, good luck, bro.

Voldemort wrote:You need a strong PI resume coming into law school to get a PI job? Are you serious? Sorry dude, that may help, but that is far from a necessary condition. Your just making stuff up stuff as you go a long, and if you disagree, go ahead a look at the resumes of some top PI attorneys- most went straight from college to law school. Cite some evidence, cause that remark is pretty outlandish.

At nearly all schools, less than 5% of the class is working in PI after graduation. Even at NYU, the school with the highest PI placement, less than 12% of the c/o 2010 worked in PI after graduation. If you don't think you need a strong PI resume to get prestigious PI jobs, good luck, bro.

You didn't prove any points here. Did you control for self-selection bias? Debt aversion? Whether or not choosing PI at these schools relates to having a PI resume? You have no facts. Sorry, bro. Showing low PI placements at most schools doesn't say anything about one's resume.

Voldemort wrote:You need a strong PI resume coming into law school to get a PI job? Are you serious? Sorry dude, that may help, but that is far from a necessary condition. Your just making stuff up stuff as you go a long, and if you disagree, go ahead a look at the resumes of some top PI attorneys- most went straight from college to law school. Cite some evidence, cause that remark is pretty outlandish.

At nearly all schools, less than 5% of the class is working in PI after graduation. Even at NYU, the school with the highest PI placement, less than 12% of the c/o 2010 worked in PI after graduation. If you don't think you need a strong PI resume to get prestigious PI jobs, good luck, bro.

You didn't prove any points here. Did you control for self-selection bias? Debt aversion? Whether or not choosing PI at these schools relates to having a PI resume? You have no facts. Sorry, bro. Showing low PI placements at most schools doesn't say anything about one's resume.

Voldemort wrote:You need a strong PI resume coming into law school to get a PI job? Are you serious? Sorry dude, that may help, but that is far from a necessary condition. Your just making stuff up stuff as you go a long, and if you disagree, go ahead a look at the resumes of some top PI attorneys- most went straight from college to law school. Cite some evidence, cause that remark is pretty outlandish.

At nearly all schools, less than 5% of the class is working in PI after graduation. Even at NYU, the school with the highest PI placement, less than 12% of the c/o 2010 worked in PI after graduation. If you don't think you need a strong PI resume to get prestigious PI jobs, good luck, bro.

You didn't prove any points here. Did you control for self-selection bias? Debt aversion? Whether or not choosing PI at these schools relates to having a PI resume? You have no facts. Sorry, bro. Showing low PI placements at most schools doesn't say anything about one's resume.

Well, read some threads around here on the topic and you'll find out.

Oh, now it makes sense, all you read is TLS. Listen, if you are going to go to law school, I'd hate to break it to you, but your first order of business should be to contact alumni from the school you are attending and make assumptions from there experiences. Second to that, research PI, think tanks, NGOs, and government programs for lawyers, and ask current employees how they received there positions. You are living in a bubble here. Sad, because you probably chose the school you were going to based on the most convincing TLS critic.

Voldemort wrote:Oh, now it makes sense, all you read is TLS. Listen, if you are going to go to law school, I'd hate to break it to you, but your first order of business should be to contact alumni from the school you are attending and make assumptions from there experiences. Second to that, research PI, think tanks, NGOs, and government programs for lawyers, and ask current employees how they received there positions. You are living in a bubble here. Sad, because you probably chose the school you were going to based on the most convincing TLS critic.

roaringeagle wrote:With a law degree I could fight to get that homeless person medical help and shelter.

LOL Lawyers run homeless shelters and soup kitchens now?

IMHO, being a lawyer is one of the only (legal) was to really fight the bad guys. You can be a cop or an FBI agent, but you spend most of your time oppressing minorities through draconian drug laws. As a lawyer with a good case you can tear down institutions. Merck was nearly sued out of existence after the Vioxx scandal. You can't have that kind of impact in any other profession.

roaringeagle wrote:With a law degree I could fight to get that homeless person medical help and shelter.

LOL Lawyers run homeless shelters and soup kitchens now?

IMHO, being a lawyer is one of the only (legal) was to really fight the bad guys. You can be a cop or an FBI agent, but you spend most of your time oppressing minorities through draconian drug laws. As a lawyer with a good case you can tear down institutions. Merck was nearly sued out of existence after the Vioxx scandal. You can't have that kind of impact in any other profession.

Agreed, but the opportunity to work on high-impact litigation is pretty limited for most law school graduates.

Last edited by 071816 on Fri May 11, 2012 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.